Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed by a father on behalf of his minor daughter, who is a victim of rape, for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to terminate the pregnancy of the minor, the division bench of Manoj Kumar Gupta and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,JJ. while allowing the medical termination of pregnancy, gave the following directions:
- The victim was directed to appear along with her parents before the Principal, S.N. Medical College, Agra, during the first session the following day.
- The Principal was instructed to constitute a team of medical specialists to carry out the termination of the pregnancy on the same day, or, if not feasible, no later than the next day.
- The District Magistrate, Agra, was directed to ensure that all medical and ancillary expenses, including travel and accommodation for the petitioner and her family, would be borne by the State.
- The aborted foetus was to be preserved in accordance with law for forensic examination in connection with the main criminal case.
-
All concerned were directed to take appropriate steps to maintain confidentiality.
Background
The victim, a 17-and-a-half-year-old minor girl in a case filed under Sections 65(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’), 2023, and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), had approached the Court through her father seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy. The matter was initially placed before a Coordinate Bench on 25-06-2025, which granted time to the State respondents to file a counter affidavit.
The State, in its response, stated that the petitioner had earlier moved an application before the CJM, Agra, on 10-05-2025, who then sought a report from the Chief Medical Officer. A medical board was constituted and examined the petitioner on 13-06-2025, determining the fetus to be 26 weeks and 5 days old. A subsequent examination on 02-07-2025 reported the fetus to be 29 weeks and 1 day old. It was concluded that at approximately 31 weeks, terminating the pregnancy could pose a serious risk to both the victim and the fetus.
The matter was taken up on 14-07-2025 on an urgent mention by the petitioner’s counsel.
The Court had acknowledged that while the right to reproductive autonomy, including the right to terminate a pregnancy, as well as the dignity and privacy of the pregnant person, are paramount, the advanced stage of the pregnancy warranted a cautious approach. Given the late term, the Court opined that the victim should be properly counseled and made aware of the alternative option, namely, that upon delivery, the child could be placed in the foster care of a responsible agency or body, with complete confidentiality maintained throughout the process.
Accordingly, the Court passed an order directing the Principal of S.N. Medical College, Agra, to depute a Psychiatrist and a Clinical Psychologist to counsel the victim and her parents. The Court also sought input from the District Magistrate, Agra, in the event the victim agreed to carry the pregnancy to full term. The entire exercise was to be completed within two days, and the matter was listed for the next hearing accordingly.
In compliance with the Court’s order, the Principal of S.N. Medical College assigned the requisite professionals to conduct a counseling session with the victim and her parents. A report was submitted in a sealed cover through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Upon reviewing the report, the Court noted that despite a full 45-minute counseling session, the victim and her guardian remained firm in their decision to seek termination of the pregnancy and did not agree to carry it to full term.
Analysis and Decision
The Court took note of the decision in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 6 SCC 327, wherein the Court, while dealing with a case involving a 31-week pregnancy, had examined in detail the scheme and provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (‘MTP Act’). It was held that the right to abortion is a concomitant right flowing from the rights to dignity, autonomy, and reproductive choice, all of which are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was emphasised that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply personal one. This choice is not only an exercise of reproductive freedom but also a reflection of the pregnant person’s individual agency and control over their body and life decisions.
Further, the Court took note of XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1573, wherein the Supreme Court dealt with a plea for termination of pregnancy at 27 weeks and 2 days (± 2 weeks). The Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at risk. It emphasized that the woman alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker regarding abortion.
Referring to the present case, the Court noted that despite a full counseling session, the victim and her parents remained firm in their decision not to carry the pregnancy to full term, possibly due to fear of social stigma, poverty, and the deep physical and psychological trauma resulting from the crime.
Taking into account the overall circumstances, the Court, with a heavy heart, permitted the termination of the pregnancy.
[Ab (2025) Through Her Guardian v. State of UP, WRIT – C No. – 20205 of 2025, decided on 17-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pandey,Praveen Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :– C.S.C.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
